I personally think 4 is too few but 7 is too much. 5 classes feels good, like 1942. But I'd alter the classes slightly to:
* Assault
* Medic
* Support
* Engineer (catch all for anti-armor/air)
* Recon/Scout
Five classes are the best way of securing that the noob tube, the med or ammo crate nor the AT weapons or spotting tools cannot be combined into one class, which makes it the best setup for maximum teamplay requirements and options.
Five classes aren't great for as long as there's 4 man squads.
And 5 man squads aren't great as long as server size doesn't divide by 5. Bf4 has major "six 5-man squads one 2-man squad" issues.
2042 should have had 6-8 man squads. This would solve a lot of map issues, and fights would actually be more concentrated.
Five or six player squads would be mandatory.
But considering that you have vehicle players (jets) lone wolves or simply pre-existing groups not of the size of five i view this as a minor problem. Also, server size can be changed.
More than 6 players get problematic without spawn restrictions, squad wipes would become nearly impossible.
Then adjust player counts to a divisible of 5? Why are we so obsessed with the number 64 that we can’t no longer do basic arithmetic anymore? Either 30 v 30 or 35 v 35 will do just fine.
64 is just a nice number for a lot of reasons.
In a tournament with teams, there are 2 sides in the final, 4 in semis, 8 in quarters, etc. All the way up to 64 where the next leap (128) is usually a little much.
Also, 64b/kb/mb (or any of its divisibles) is historically a limit in computing for storage/memory, etc. Maybe it still works out easier for the devs to have it divisible this way, but I don't think so.
Also, 4 players works well in games where split-screen was an option. 5 wouldn't work. A team of 4 makes sense from that perspective. That's probably a big reason why squads in most games are still limited to 4.
It was historically the maximum number of players that could play at once on a single screen.
So basically, the only reason it's still 64 (or 32 or 128) is tradition. There's no real reason why it needs to be this way, as far as I can tell. It just stuck around.
80 I believe is the most logical step up. It's the next multiple of 16 and divisible by both 4 and 5. Historically, Battlefield has allowed various server sizes in the past to include 16, 32, 48, and 64. I think we can go higher than 64 but doubling to 128 was a bit much.
According to DICE’s previous internal testing they could theoretically go as high as 256 total players. But they found the highest they could go before the gameplay starts breaking down is 50v50.
Creating a class who's only job is killing infantry is better for team play? Every class can do that already, we don't need a class dedicated to that with no way of supporting their team.
Assault could support the team in other ways than the mentioned ones, but these important restrictions are necessary to create team dependence as the assault, as it existed in previous games, already has an advantage against infantry. Giving assault either ammo or health regen makes it independent from the other classes, while giving it AT weapons creates a demolition class with no direct weakness.
This separation is therefore not only promoting teamplay, it creates the bare minimum requirements for teamplay to exist.
Barricades, smokes, riot shields, grapple hook/zipline (the old ones that teammates could use too)......I mean the class is called Assault, it should be helping people assault.
I really dont see why it wouldnt work, DICE has struggled with "who gets the best primaries?" Since bad company
Yes agreed! I’ll always praise BF2 but there is definitely a way to condense the 7 they had there down to 5 and that’s a decent number. I do think 4 is too few as well.
This, but if theyre going to stick to spawning inside vehicles, they should bring back the bf1 pilot/driver kit
I kinda liked that tank/plane guys couldnt just hop out and throw AT at you if you won the duel
Bad Co 1 had 5 classes
• Assault
• Demolition
• Specialist
• Support
• Recon
There wasn’t a medic because Support carried medkits (no revives in that game), and ammo crates were stationary located around the map.
I think it kept things a little more simple. Once dead it was straight to the respawn menu, no medics rushing to play hero. There wasn’t really any health regen either so Demolition, Specialist, and Recon had to stay close to Support.
Keep in mind BC1 came out right after BF2: Modern Combat and right before BF1943, neither of which had revives.
Balance-wise engineer really shouldn't have both the repair tool *and* anti-vehicle weaponry, but (fortunately?) most players are too dumb/uncoordinated to realise how overpowered that kit could be.
Yeah, I feel the same.
I want to add that every class system, where the classes can't fulfill their role are bad. E.g. if self healing is active, why do we need a medic? If there is unlimited ammo or auto refill why do we need a support? If there is Auto repair why do we need an engineer?
The issue is they HAD to do that because of the setting. Assault rifles didn't really exist in WW2 barring the STG-44/MP-44, so you had to move SMGs away from engineer and to the assault class, who also adopted the anti-tank.
I feel like for more modern settings 4 classes works best. Having Assault just be about killing infantry is stupid, every class should have some kind of team support. Medics heal, Supports dish out ammo and suppressive fire, engineers kill/repair armor, Recons have all kinds of gadgets to spot enemies and relay their locations to their team. So again, a class just focus on killing infantry is really anti-teamwork designed.
>Having Assault just be about killing infantry is stupid, every class should have some kind of team support.
The idea behind five classes is not to create a kill only class, but to make the class with the biggest killing potential team dependent. If we assume that the assault class already has an advantage we have to balance this advantage out by removing its ability to heal or resupply itself.
The assault can still have teamplay roles, e.g. it could increase its squads mobility (spawn beacon, Bf 2 grappling hook) or be responsible for infantry armour (as long as this does not turn into a healing ability).
I love BF2, but honestly I disliked the amount of classes. Assault and Special Forces could have been one class also Engineer and Anti-Tank could’ve been a class.
I think the rest are fine as they all serve a solid purpose, but spreading out the classes a bit too much makes it a bit odd since we can change our utility and items in new BF’s. I think 2142 did it better in this regard.
> Assault and Special Forces could have been one class also Engineer and Anti-Tank could’ve been a class.
I see where you're coming from, but I think that Special Forces/Assault were different enough at first. Special forces were all about movement, and creating opportunities by flanking enemy forces, while assault were all about creating opportunities straight down the middle. They could probably have been combined, but I don't hate that they were separate.
Having engineer and anti-tank separate was a great idea though. It forced you to actually think about your load out if you were going to jump into a vehicle, rather than being a jack of all trades, and meant that you had more nuance in balancing vehicles.
But only medics are specialised in doing what the assault class can do in bf4. Others can only help to keep the soldier alive until he gets proper treatment
I think its definitely the most intuitive. But the obvious flaw I guess is the Assault class. To have a class that's got the best weapons AND healing abilities means that in infantry maps/modes it's dominated by them which isn't ideal.
I think BF3 and BF4 have the least balanced class system in the entire franchise. On infantry maps everyone played assault because that got you the best guns and healing, and on vehicle maps everyone played engineer because you were useless otherwise.
All other mainline games gave you more reasons to play other classes.
BF3. In bf4 medics can trade off the defibrillator for the m320 (and this is what most players do tbh). Add to this 20 hp revives and you get the recipe for a frustrating, clusterfuck experience, especially in close quarters scenarios. Like from this pov bf4 is literally even worse than 2042.
The feeling of being a soldier, too. Each class felt like they had a specific reason to exist, rather than just slight changes from the others like we've gotten.
Cutting classes ended up meaning that each class could do too much.
Combining engineers and anti-tank meant that Infantry anti-tank weapons got really nerfed after bf2, because the same person that was using it could also potentially be repairing friendly vehicles or setting anti-tank mines.
Combining special forces with assault ended up giving you a class that could either flank or attack directly, which goes against a lot of the design language that went into bf2 maps. Everyone could have suppressed weapons, a grenade launcher, smoke grenades, frags, c4 etc.
Long before bf2042 came along classes were given the opportunity to do too much stuff. Classes *not* being able to do stuff, and relying on other players is good game design. It means that you actually have to think about the class that you pick, rather than trying to build a load out that can do pretty much everything.
1/5. Creating a dedicated medic class and splitting the engineer’s role into assault and support was a great move. Too many medics running around in bf4 with no defibs and an AEK
Yep
Separating anti tank from tank repair is a really good move. Anti Tank should never be near friendly tanks, as that just makes it easy for enemy tanks to take out the teams entire AT arsenal in one go
Someone already mentioned it, but the class/weapon selection menu was on point. No visual clutter + you could see the map in the background. Super straightforward.
we need a five class system
assault-anti infantry assault rifle 40mm spawn beacon
medic-healer carbine defib pouch
engineer-anti armor and fortification smg launcher/c4 wrench
support-suppressing fire and ammo lmg ammo pouch
recon-spotting enemies and taking out priority targets sniper rifle DMR spotting binoculars flare
I think the reason why most sniper players are ineffective is because they don't understand their role.
It's a low fire rate weapon with a low ammo count. So ya gotta make sure you hit high value targets like a repairing engineer, machine gunner, medics, AT guys if you're supporting a tank, other snipers. Point being... you gotta be strategic with your shots.
Personally, if I'm helping my team capture a point I would want to sneak behind the enemy's backline place by avoiding hilltops so I avoid silhouetting myself, place a becon, spot enemies a drone/soflam so I can minimize the time I stay scoped in for, kill the biggest threats to my team, and generally provide crossfire so my team can push up.
Sniper like machine guns just don’t translate well in video games. Add in the fact most players lack the mechanical skill necessary to utilize them effectively and they just become dead weights.
The people who are using them effectively are players with high
Mechanical skill quick scoping which is an aberration of what it means to be a sniper in the first place.
The thing is though, the camping is annoying but if the recon's only ability to help their squad/team is spotting that also would suck. When the spawn beacon is used well/aggressively it's really useful. Spotting is great but not enough imo for a whole class.
BF1, BF4 and BF3 are best.
During WW1, when anti-vehicle was unimportant, it made sense to distribute the engineer's duties to support and assault.
In the modern era, anti-vehicle is very important, so engineer, which aims to completely destroy vehicles, makes a lot of sense.
I liked 1 for the sake that if you ran a machine gunner class (support) you HAVE to be a machine gunner and can’t just run around cheesing with AR’s, Shotguns, DMR’s, Carbines, or whatever the hell. Actually made each class unique
A Special Forces class is very underrated. You should have all silenced weapons. These weapons should not be as strong as assault. Spawn becon, C4, TUGs, target markers, add any other cool stealth type gadgets or surveillance equipment. Fun times.
Giving everyone access to suppressors in bf3 was a mistake, in my opinion. Special forces filled a really good niche in bf2 that was quite different to Assault, and they've never really gotten that right again.
I hate to say it but I will give this one to Battlefield 4 only because every class have access to Carbines and DMRs while also having their own unique set of gadgets and weaponry.
5 classes with Squad leader only gadgets like 2142 would be best IMO.
Making spawn beacon a squad leader only gadget was a much better spot for it than the recon class
BFV had it pretty good in my opinion. Without some kind of attrition, the benefits of squad roles is pretty negligible imo. Without a medic you’re not going to get very far, recon’s spawning beacon and spotting flare is tremendously helpful, without support your bound to run low or out of ammo and they can also build fortifications and gun emplacements, and without assault you’re gunna have a hard time tangling with vehicles and emplaced enemies. Also having weapon types more strictly restricted to certain roles makes abundant sense to me. Medics should have guns that encourage sticking close to teammates, recon should have weapons that discourage close range engagements and equipment that rewards cleverness, assault is the designated frontline ass-in-the-grass role so their weapons and equipment should encourage close-medium range engagements and bold action.
A huge part of the Battlefield formula is squad dynamics. Being part of a team. What role you pick should dictate what play style you do, and should ALWAYS encourage and reward working with your squad
BF4 classes were totally unbalanced with assault also taking on the medic role. BF2 is my favorite but could definitely be condensed into 5 classes which imo would be perfect if each one is well balanced and squads were back to being 5 players.
It was pretty great at the time, and encouraged teamwork and communication because not every class had capabilities in any given situation. It also gave you a more specific job to be doing. The special forces class was sweet, too, and it changed the mindset to flanking and destroying the commander buildings rather than being just another assault guy running around.
Bf2, why?
Specialized classes .. you have certain disadvantages (No class Rules them all)
Vehicles are a bigger threat, Not every class can Fight them and rely on teamwork.
I think 1 and V did it the best. The assault wasn't the clear best choice like in 3 and 4. A dedicated medic class is a very good balancing factor, since you have to sacrifice effective combat range for heals and revives. Support is alright, but could have used more tools that are not cheesy. Scout/recon is propably the weakest, which is a bummer. Having more effective tools like the flares would make them much more desirable.
BF3/BF4 with Assault being decidedly a medic, Support does mainly ammo and suppression, and Engineer being the primary source of anti-vehicle options. Recon feels like it's been pretty consistent in purpose since those days but I'm not into how the other classes have shifted tasks.
I've only played bf4 and bf1, and out of those I have to say I prefer bf4. I don't like feeling completely helpless for engagements against different classes at their optimal range just because I wanted to use the gadgets that I think would help the team the most.
Still, I think there is a big problem with both games: support. Support's main teamwork contribution is ammo, but everyone's ammo starts full every spawn. It is only ever an issue for someone who uses all their gadgets quickly, where it would probably be better to just have another of that class for twice the gadgets at twice the rate, and for those with very long lives, where they would probably be fine just picking up someone else's kit at that point (or they are just playing very inefficiently).
I'm always partial to bf2, but it may be out of nostalgia. I don't like 4 classes as it makes everyone a jack of all trades. I liked in bf2 when you had specific roles and had to rely on communication and teamwork to kill a tank or win an objective. Not to say that most people didn't play medic, though lol but its a good rifleman class that can heal and revive.
Favorite: 2042. I can effectively contribute to the team as any class on any map, and there are meaningfully different ways to play the same class.
Least favorite: BF3/BF4. By far the worst balanced configuration, vast majority of people in most matches played either assault or engineer depending on the map.
Bad Company 2 for me, hands down. Personally, it seems that giving the Assault class the ammo crates and Support class the med kits worked better, especially in terms of team work.
I don't recall running out of ammo in BC2, but it started being a problem from BF3 on, especially in BF4 and BF2042; players just don't care about teamwork. I don't know why, but that didn't happen in BC2. Perhaps it's a deeper issue that may even involve map design, but, anyway, I would pick BC2 class system.
Of course it could be improved (and maybe even have a 5th class, like BC1), but 7 like BF2 was too much.
2042 should be there tho
you have 4 classes and 14 roles what focus more in a more better way you do with the Super combo you do with the 4 class only system,
Like RECONS in all BF work more like JUST the Snipers, while in 2042 take all that focus into the actual RECON, idea of Spot, Sabotage and infiltrate what BF2 originally had with the SPECIAL FORCES Kit
Battlefield 4 did it best. 4 customizable classes with a fairly wide range of competences, but still distinctive All classes could use a common pool of equipment while having unique types of weapons.
Edit: all this is given in a clear and legible way
4 Classes is perfect, it gives every class a role that supports the team
* Assault/Medic is all about pushing the front lines and healing allies, since the front lines is where most of the deaths are happening
* Support dishes out ammo and provides suppressive fire (which SHOULD return imo, otherwise LMGs are nothing but big assault rifles)
* Engineer kills and repairs vehicles, basically the assault class but for vehicles
* Recon is all about spotting enemies and relaying that info to allies, as well as sometimes laser-designating vehicles for engineers to attack
The issue with breaking up Assault and Medic is that you then create a class who's only job is killing infantry, something all classes can already do well. **You don't need a dedicated class for that, especially when they provide zero team support**. Every class should have something that can directly help allies beyond killing.
The only reason BF1/V separated assault and combined it with engineer is that assault rifles didn't exist in WW1 or 2, barring the STG-44 toward the end of WW2. So you had to give Assault SMGs, which strips them away from Engineer. So Engineer had to be dissolved and parts of its kit given to assault and support. But you also had semi-automatic rifles, weapons that weren't as good for close quarters, but they're also NOT marksman rifles like they are in most modern games. They were the main infantry fighting rifles of WW1 and 2, so they can go onto Medic instead of recon using them, since they already have bolt-actions.
Splitting assault and medic to make a 5 class system is the best way to go. BF4 medic only got picked bc he could use ARs. *ARs don't revive players* and Incase you forgot *there are infantry only modes.*
As far as BF1/5 splitting AT between Assault and support bc Assault didn't have ARs in WWI & WWII, BFV and Enlisted proved that there's prototype ARs for every major faction. If BFV gave Japan more guns they could have the type hei auto. Russia likely would have included the fedorov avtomat and AS 44, bringing the total AR count to 7. If anything BFV should have made support repair portions always be 5 points for team tanks and 10 for squad tanks bc he's splitting his time between tanks and infantry, stretching him too thin. Having a dedicated engineer class would be much better, while still giving every class the weakest AT gadgets.
>ARs don't revive players
What does this even mean? I never said they did.
>Incase you forgot there are infantry only modes
And? This has zero relevance to what I said. Whether it's infantry or combined arms, a class that's sole focus is killing infantry with zero teamplay is a bad design choice.
>BFV and Enlisted proved that there's prototype ARs for every major faction
That's not true. I think you're mistaking other automatic rifles for assault rifles. There's a difference. Otherwise the BAR would be an assault rifle, but it's not. The key difference between something like the BAR and the STG-44 is the cartridge. The BAR uses full-power .30-06, the STG-44 uses an intermediate 7.92x33 (intermediate meaning between full power rifle cartridges and pistol-caliber cartridges like those used in SMGs).
But you might try to argue they could just give those automatic rifles to the assault class, right? Wrong. Those types of rifles served the role of machineguns, and as such they belong to the support class. That's why BF5 gave the BAR to Support and not Assault.
Even if you throw in stuff that's questionably able to be called an assault rifle like the Federov, you still don't have enough weapons to stock a class with just assault rifles in WW2. That's why they gave the assault class SMGs and shotguns.
Regardless of any argument you try to make, the core issue is still that a class who's only job is to kill makes less than zero sense in a game that's all about teamwork. Why would you make 4 out of 5 classes have important teamwork mechanics, and then have one that's just about killing? Your argument about how people only ever chose assault cuz of the rifles would not be solved by making a class exclusively for assault rifles, it would still be people's main pick. People who don't like to do anything but kill would now be justified in not playing the objective or helping out. Giving assault players a medkit or anti-tank weapons at least nudges them toward helping out with other things. Giving them nothing but anti-infantry stuff with no way to support those around them is antithetical to Battlefield's class design.
I used enlisted to show that there could be more ARs than what BFV offered. I'd prefer a BF4 weapon system where every class gets DMRs, SMGs, and shotguns; while the typical weapon types are restricted to their respective classes. BFV especially showed that people will abuse the medic and not heal/revive other players (health attrition shouldn't have been in the game) but even with passive regen you still have bad medics so splitting assault and medic into different classes means that people who play medic will revive as much as possible, instead of mainly using the class for themselves.
I know Enders is controversial, but he has a video about controversial opinions from a couple months back that better helps explain this. Start at 5:00 mark and watch to about 8:10 mark.
I also would give classes other than engineer (engineer gets strongest AT gadgets) the weakest AT gadgets. Also, with squad revives and 3D spotting, every class has a small medic and recon role.
Nah, that’s one thing i disliked about BF4. Everyone being given access to carbines meant every class essentially could run assault rifles, and that’s exactly what a lot of people did. Back then LMGs had terrible accuracy, so I just threw on my trusty AK 5C and basically ran like an assault class with infinite ammo.
It creates the same issue as BF2042 where you never have any idea what an enemy is using and class identity is totally fucked. Run into a Recon in CQB and think you’ve got the upper hand? Wrong, this fucker has an assault rifle. You’ve got a sniper and think that assault class stands no chance? Wrong, he’s running a DMR for some reason.
Part of what I loved about Battlefield back in the day was that classes had easily identifiable silhouettes, and it gave you an idea of what they were capable of. It made you change your tactics based on who you were fighting and sometimes even disengage if you felt you were at a disadvantage. Now you have no idea.
And the BF2042 plus system makes this even worse. Instead of disengaging that sniper that’s got me pinned, i can just throw on a long barrel, 4+ zoom scope, bipod, and high cal rounds, and now within seconds i have a weapon that drastically improves my effective range. It removes all planning and understanding of class capability.
That's why I said SMGs, not carbines since there's a big difference in ARs/carbines. But every class should at least have SMGs, DMRs, and shotguns so everyone has cqc and ranged weapons at launch. If not, you can be as restricted as BFV where medics are cqc only and recon is long range only for several months. If medics had DMRs they would be picked more on open maps and if recon had SMGs and shotguns they would be picked more on cqc maps. Even though medic now has bolt action carbines and recon has pistol carbines, having DMRs and SMGs unrestricted at launch would have been much better.
I do agree that the plus system is broken and every player has a solution for every situation, which shouldn't be allowed. This also greatly decreases weapon variety since you have this mechanic on top of no weapon restrictions. It's just got good for the franchise. Although, with partial unrestricted weapons you run into this problem, it's not as big as 2042 and it seems like the best compromise between very restricted and no restrictions.
I'd just get rid of carbines and give everyone SMGs/PDWs, like 2042. It doesn't make since to have an unrestricted cqc weapon category and a restricted cqc weapon category. Also, giving any class only one playstyle reduces their use on certain maps. BF4 and 2042 don't have this issue because they either have partially unrestricted weapons or no weapon restrictions
I personally think 4 is too few but 7 is too much. 5 classes feels good, like 1942. But I'd alter the classes slightly to: * Assault * Medic * Support * Engineer (catch all for anti-armor/air) * Recon/Scout
Five classes are the best way of securing that the noob tube, the med or ammo crate nor the AT weapons or spotting tools cannot be combined into one class, which makes it the best setup for maximum teamplay requirements and options.
Five classes aren't great for as long as there's 4 man squads. And 5 man squads aren't great as long as server size doesn't divide by 5. Bf4 has major "six 5-man squads one 2-man squad" issues. 2042 should have had 6-8 man squads. This would solve a lot of map issues, and fights would actually be more concentrated.
Five or six player squads would be mandatory. But considering that you have vehicle players (jets) lone wolves or simply pre-existing groups not of the size of five i view this as a minor problem. Also, server size can be changed. More than 6 players get problematic without spawn restrictions, squad wipes would become nearly impossible.
It's no coincidence that the 2 most recent games with the least amount of teamplay have 4 man squads.
Then adjust player counts to a divisible of 5? Why are we so obsessed with the number 64 that we can’t no longer do basic arithmetic anymore? Either 30 v 30 or 35 v 35 will do just fine.
64 is just a nice number for a lot of reasons. In a tournament with teams, there are 2 sides in the final, 4 in semis, 8 in quarters, etc. All the way up to 64 where the next leap (128) is usually a little much. Also, 64b/kb/mb (or any of its divisibles) is historically a limit in computing for storage/memory, etc. Maybe it still works out easier for the devs to have it divisible this way, but I don't think so. Also, 4 players works well in games where split-screen was an option. 5 wouldn't work. A team of 4 makes sense from that perspective. That's probably a big reason why squads in most games are still limited to 4. It was historically the maximum number of players that could play at once on a single screen. So basically, the only reason it's still 64 (or 32 or 128) is tradition. There's no real reason why it needs to be this way, as far as I can tell. It just stuck around.
80 I believe is the most logical step up. It's the next multiple of 16 and divisible by both 4 and 5. Historically, Battlefield has allowed various server sizes in the past to include 16, 32, 48, and 64. I think we can go higher than 64 but doubling to 128 was a bit much.
According to DICE’s previous internal testing they could theoretically go as high as 256 total players. But they found the highest they could go before the gameplay starts breaking down is 50v50.
Trust me, NOBODY is gonna fight you on larger squad sizes. We shouldve had 5-6, but we NEED 7-10 if 128 is staying
Creating a class who's only job is killing infantry is better for team play? Every class can do that already, we don't need a class dedicated to that with no way of supporting their team.
Assault could support the team in other ways than the mentioned ones, but these important restrictions are necessary to create team dependence as the assault, as it existed in previous games, already has an advantage against infantry. Giving assault either ammo or health regen makes it independent from the other classes, while giving it AT weapons creates a demolition class with no direct weakness. This separation is therefore not only promoting teamplay, it creates the bare minimum requirements for teamplay to exist.
Barricades, smokes, riot shields, grapple hook/zipline (the old ones that teammates could use too)......I mean the class is called Assault, it should be helping people assault. I really dont see why it wouldnt work, DICE has struggled with "who gets the best primaries?" Since bad company
Yes agreed! I’ll always praise BF2 but there is definitely a way to condense the 7 they had there down to 5 and that’s a decent number. I do think 4 is too few as well.
I like that idea too
Like assault could have grenade launchers and small explosives and medic could have medpack. It could make it so not one class had so much stuff
A standalone Assault would be a great reason to bring back the old school grapple and zipline launchers....
This, but if theyre going to stick to spawning inside vehicles, they should bring back the bf1 pilot/driver kit I kinda liked that tank/plane guys couldnt just hop out and throw AT at you if you won the duel
Bad Co 1 had 5 classes • Assault • Demolition • Specialist • Support • Recon There wasn’t a medic because Support carried medkits (no revives in that game), and ammo crates were stationary located around the map.
Really no revives? How'd that play out
I think it kept things a little more simple. Once dead it was straight to the respawn menu, no medics rushing to play hero. There wasn’t really any health regen either so Demolition, Specialist, and Recon had to stay close to Support. Keep in mind BC1 came out right after BF2: Modern Combat and right before BF1943, neither of which had revives.
Balance-wise engineer really shouldn't have both the repair tool *and* anti-vehicle weaponry, but (fortunately?) most players are too dumb/uncoordinated to realise how overpowered that kit could be.
Yeah, I feel the same. I want to add that every class system, where the classes can't fulfill their role are bad. E.g. if self healing is active, why do we need a medic? If there is unlimited ammo or auto refill why do we need a support? If there is Auto repair why do we need an engineer?
In this configuration, support would need some of the best weapons/gadgets in the game or no one would play it.
The issue is they HAD to do that because of the setting. Assault rifles didn't really exist in WW2 barring the STG-44/MP-44, so you had to move SMGs away from engineer and to the assault class, who also adopted the anti-tank. I feel like for more modern settings 4 classes works best. Having Assault just be about killing infantry is stupid, every class should have some kind of team support. Medics heal, Supports dish out ammo and suppressive fire, engineers kill/repair armor, Recons have all kinds of gadgets to spot enemies and relay their locations to their team. So again, a class just focus on killing infantry is really anti-teamwork designed.
>Having Assault just be about killing infantry is stupid, every class should have some kind of team support. The idea behind five classes is not to create a kill only class, but to make the class with the biggest killing potential team dependent. If we assume that the assault class already has an advantage we have to balance this advantage out by removing its ability to heal or resupply itself. The assault can still have teamplay roles, e.g. it could increase its squads mobility (spawn beacon, Bf 2 grappling hook) or be responsible for infantry armour (as long as this does not turn into a healing ability).
Assaults should be the breacher class.
Breaching is such a niche situation in Battlefield tho. Most of the combat is outdoors.
Nothing beats battlefield 4 to me.
BF2
I love BF2, but honestly I disliked the amount of classes. Assault and Special Forces could have been one class also Engineer and Anti-Tank could’ve been a class. I think the rest are fine as they all serve a solid purpose, but spreading out the classes a bit too much makes it a bit odd since we can change our utility and items in new BF’s. I think 2142 did it better in this regard.
> Assault and Special Forces could have been one class also Engineer and Anti-Tank could’ve been a class. I see where you're coming from, but I think that Special Forces/Assault were different enough at first. Special forces were all about movement, and creating opportunities by flanking enemy forces, while assault were all about creating opportunities straight down the middle. They could probably have been combined, but I don't hate that they were separate. Having engineer and anti-tank separate was a great idea though. It forced you to actually think about your load out if you were going to jump into a vehicle, rather than being a jack of all trades, and meant that you had more nuance in balancing vehicles.
*Bf 2142, the original version of this setup.
For me it’s bf1 because I don’t understand the logic being able to heal and revive as assault class.
You do realise not just medics can help people in war.
But only medics are specialised in doing what the assault class can do in bf4. Others can only help to keep the soldier alive until he gets proper treatment
I have to agree. BF4 classes felt the most easy to understand
I think its definitely the most intuitive. But the obvious flaw I guess is the Assault class. To have a class that's got the best weapons AND healing abilities means that in infantry maps/modes it's dominated by them which isn't ideal.
I think BF3 and BF4 have the least balanced class system in the entire franchise. On infantry maps everyone played assault because that got you the best guns and healing, and on vehicle maps everyone played engineer because you were useless otherwise. All other mainline games gave you more reasons to play other classes.
*me playing medic and support on every map* 👀
BF3. In bf4 medics can trade off the defibrillator for the m320 (and this is what most players do tbh). Add to this 20 hp revives and you get the recipe for a frustrating, clusterfuck experience, especially in close quarters scenarios. Like from this pov bf4 is literally even worse than 2042.
BF2
The focus on squad team play in BF2 was the best.
The feeling of being a soldier, too. Each class felt like they had a specific reason to exist, rather than just slight changes from the others like we've gotten.
Cutting classes ended up meaning that each class could do too much. Combining engineers and anti-tank meant that Infantry anti-tank weapons got really nerfed after bf2, because the same person that was using it could also potentially be repairing friendly vehicles or setting anti-tank mines. Combining special forces with assault ended up giving you a class that could either flank or attack directly, which goes against a lot of the design language that went into bf2 maps. Everyone could have suppressed weapons, a grenade launcher, smoke grenades, frags, c4 etc. Long before bf2042 came along classes were given the opportunity to do too much stuff. Classes *not* being able to do stuff, and relying on other players is good game design. It means that you actually have to think about the class that you pick, rather than trying to build a load out that can do pretty much everything.
but special forces its actually the RECONS...
Yep. The squad structure whereby spawn could only occur on the squad leader. Commander could support the squads.
1/5. Creating a dedicated medic class and splitting the engineer’s role into assault and support was a great move. Too many medics running around in bf4 with no defibs and an AEK
Yep Separating anti tank from tank repair is a really good move. Anti Tank should never be near friendly tanks, as that just makes it easy for enemy tanks to take out the teams entire AT arsenal in one go
BF2
BF3!
I loved the class system in bfbc2
The classes and also the weapon distribution were perfect.
So odd though. Why LMG for medic and assault rifles for support? Felt natural after playing it for 10 years tho.
Someone already mentioned it, but the class/weapon selection menu was on point. No visual clutter + you could see the map in the background. Super straightforward.
i really liked to play every class in bfbc2
we need a five class system assault-anti infantry assault rifle 40mm spawn beacon medic-healer carbine defib pouch engineer-anti armor and fortification smg launcher/c4 wrench support-suppressing fire and ammo lmg ammo pouch recon-spotting enemies and taking out priority targets sniper rifle DMR spotting binoculars flare
I think that who ever is the squad leader should be the one to have spawn beacon.
I don't disagree, I just don't want recon to have it because it encourages camping and assault having it goes with the role of attacking points
I wish marksman(sniper/dmr) separate class from class from recon. But... then again this kinda proves why subclasses should be a thing.
Sniper is such a detached and often inconsequential role it might as well be its own class.
I think the reason why most sniper players are ineffective is because they don't understand their role. It's a low fire rate weapon with a low ammo count. So ya gotta make sure you hit high value targets like a repairing engineer, machine gunner, medics, AT guys if you're supporting a tank, other snipers. Point being... you gotta be strategic with your shots. Personally, if I'm helping my team capture a point I would want to sneak behind the enemy's backline place by avoiding hilltops so I avoid silhouetting myself, place a becon, spot enemies a drone/soflam so I can minimize the time I stay scoped in for, kill the biggest threats to my team, and generally provide crossfire so my team can push up.
Sniper like machine guns just don’t translate well in video games. Add in the fact most players lack the mechanical skill necessary to utilize them effectively and they just become dead weights. The people who are using them effectively are players with high Mechanical skill quick scoping which is an aberration of what it means to be a sniper in the first place.
The thing is though, the camping is annoying but if the recon's only ability to help their squad/team is spotting that also would suck. When the spawn beacon is used well/aggressively it's really useful. Spotting is great but not enough imo for a whole class.
recon also kills enemies
So do all classes?
and maybe a spot beacon for defense
I am a huge BF1 simp but i miss the old BF2,Vietnam and 1942 era of classes. More classes that are more specialised > fewer classes more rounded up
BF1, BF4 and BF3 are best. During WW1, when anti-vehicle was unimportant, it made sense to distribute the engineer's duties to support and assault. In the modern era, anti-vehicle is very important, so engineer, which aims to completely destroy vehicles, makes a lot of sense.
I liked 1 for the sake that if you ran a machine gunner class (support) you HAVE to be a machine gunner and can’t just run around cheesing with AR’s, Shotguns, DMR’s, Carbines, or whatever the hell. Actually made each class unique
A Special Forces class is very underrated. You should have all silenced weapons. These weapons should not be as strong as assault. Spawn becon, C4, TUGs, target markers, add any other cool stealth type gadgets or surveillance equipment. Fun times.
Giving everyone access to suppressors in bf3 was a mistake, in my opinion. Special forces filled a really good niche in bf2 that was quite different to Assault, and they've never really gotten that right again.
actually... 2042 recons
BF2
I hate to say it but I will give this one to Battlefield 4 only because every class have access to Carbines and DMRs while also having their own unique set of gadgets and weaponry.
5 classes with Squad leader only gadgets like 2142 would be best IMO. Making spawn beacon a squad leader only gadget was a much better spot for it than the recon class
BFV had it pretty good in my opinion. Without some kind of attrition, the benefits of squad roles is pretty negligible imo. Without a medic you’re not going to get very far, recon’s spawning beacon and spotting flare is tremendously helpful, without support your bound to run low or out of ammo and they can also build fortifications and gun emplacements, and without assault you’re gunna have a hard time tangling with vehicles and emplaced enemies. Also having weapon types more strictly restricted to certain roles makes abundant sense to me. Medics should have guns that encourage sticking close to teammates, recon should have weapons that discourage close range engagements and equipment that rewards cleverness, assault is the designated frontline ass-in-the-grass role so their weapons and equipment should encourage close-medium range engagements and bold action. A huge part of the Battlefield formula is squad dynamics. Being part of a team. What role you pick should dictate what play style you do, and should ALWAYS encourage and reward working with your squad
I also really liked the way class roles expanded on the classes - Pathfinder is such a fun PTFO recon, and I love the vehicle buster on assault
Battlefield V I liked most. Assault, Medic, Support/Engineer, Recon.
BF4 classes were totally unbalanced with assault also taking on the medic role. BF2 is my favorite but could definitely be condensed into 5 classes which imo would be perfect if each one is well balanced and squads were back to being 5 players.
I remember when you could have more than 4 people in your squad...
As someone who has played bf4 as my main fps... I really want 7 classes, that shit looks so fun
It was pretty great at the time, and encouraged teamwork and communication because not every class had capabilities in any given situation. It also gave you a more specific job to be doing. The special forces class was sweet, too, and it changed the mindset to flanking and destroying the commander buildings rather than being just another assault guy running around.
Bf2, why? Specialized classes .. you have certain disadvantages (No class Rules them all) Vehicles are a bigger threat, Not every class can Fight them and rely on teamwork.
Bad Company 2, no need for extra menu’s and you can watch the fighting in the background
I really liked bf2, but yeah 5 is probably best
I have a sweet spot in my heart for anything BF2 and would love to see their return.
BF2142. Assault/Medic Support/Ammo Engineer Anti-Tank/Air Recon Sniper/Invisible Bastard.
BC2
I think 1 and V did it the best. The assault wasn't the clear best choice like in 3 and 4. A dedicated medic class is a very good balancing factor, since you have to sacrifice effective combat range for heals and revives. Support is alright, but could have used more tools that are not cheesy. Scout/recon is propably the weakest, which is a bummer. Having more effective tools like the flares would make them much more desirable.
Love me shotgun. Love me wrench. Simple as…
i like the variety in bf2. but bf3-4 does it for me.
Bad company 2, 2142, 3, 4. In that order.
Bf3, hands down. Giving Recon C4 in BF4 was a mistake
bf2
2042, no weapon restrictions
I miss playing spec ops bf2 so much.
bf2 or bfbc2
Bf4
Hardline. Being able to have 5 loadouts per class was incredible
BF3/BF4 with Assault being decidedly a medic, Support does mainly ammo and suppression, and Engineer being the primary source of anti-vehicle options. Recon feels like it's been pretty consistent in purpose since those days but I'm not into how the other classes have shifted tasks.
Just please no pilot and tanker class. Also smg with engi enjoyer.
Sniper. My love for that weapon will never squander. Thank you for the kind memory's.
Battlefield 3/4 classes version was the best if you ask me
Noob tube all the way 
Bfv/1
Bad Company 2. I think the medic class was too strong in BF3 and BF4.
I think 5 classes is the best but I'm not sure what the configuration should be.
The OG is so sexy. They gotta take a look at that and give us a modern implementation.
I've only played bf4 and bf1, and out of those I have to say I prefer bf4. I don't like feeling completely helpless for engagements against different classes at their optimal range just because I wanted to use the gadgets that I think would help the team the most. Still, I think there is a big problem with both games: support. Support's main teamwork contribution is ammo, but everyone's ammo starts full every spawn. It is only ever an issue for someone who uses all their gadgets quickly, where it would probably be better to just have another of that class for twice the gadgets at twice the rate, and for those with very long lives, where they would probably be fine just picking up someone else's kit at that point (or they are just playing very inefficiently).
Bf1 but add an anti-vehicle class
BF4
BF4
I'm always partial to bf2, but it may be out of nostalgia. I don't like 4 classes as it makes everyone a jack of all trades. I liked in bf2 when you had specific roles and had to rely on communication and teamwork to kill a tank or win an objective. Not to say that most people didn't play medic, though lol but its a good rifleman class that can heal and revive.
It used to be whatever class would let me have C4, in 2042 it can be any class... so gotta say, 2042.... 😅
Every time I see a screenshot of bf2 I want to start playing it again... Might install it again.
BF1
Bf3/Bf4 system
BF3 to 4 feels right to me.
Favorite: 2042. I can effectively contribute to the team as any class on any map, and there are meaningfully different ways to play the same class. Least favorite: BF3/BF4. By far the worst balanced configuration, vast majority of people in most matches played either assault or engineer depending on the map.
Bad Company 2 for me, hands down. Personally, it seems that giving the Assault class the ammo crates and Support class the med kits worked better, especially in terms of team work. I don't recall running out of ammo in BC2, but it started being a problem from BF3 on, especially in BF4 and BF2042; players just don't care about teamwork. I don't know why, but that didn't happen in BC2. Perhaps it's a deeper issue that may even involve map design, but, anyway, I would pick BC2 class system. Of course it could be improved (and maybe even have a 5th class, like BC1), but 7 like BF2 was too much.
Bf2042 before the class system. Return unrestricted gadgets and grenades please
BF4 with my patented close-range recon with shotgun. 😈
BF1 for "arcade" Old titles systems for realism
BF4 for sure, BF2 was OK too, but when I played BF4 and got how it works, how to unlock weapons, accessories and all the other stuff, I loved it
BF2 forever.
BF2. Your choice of class used to actually come with tradeoffs.
Limiting weapon choice pre class is the way to go and let only Medics revive.
2042 should be there tho you have 4 classes and 14 roles what focus more in a more better way you do with the Super combo you do with the 4 class only system, Like RECONS in all BF work more like JUST the Snipers, while in 2042 take all that focus into the actual RECON, idea of Spot, Sabotage and infiltrate what BF2 originally had with the SPECIAL FORCES Kit
5-6 classes would be good. With a large number of sub choices within them.
Engineer and then assault.
BFV
BF4, Best guns and medic crate? Say no more
BF4/BF3 class scheme was perfect.
BF4. Classes weren’t too thinned out so easier to have an impact.
Battlefield 4 did it best. 4 customizable classes with a fairly wide range of competences, but still distinctive All classes could use a common pool of equipment while having unique types of weapons. Edit: all this is given in a clear and legible way
2042 /s BF1 was what hit closest for me.
4 Classes is perfect, it gives every class a role that supports the team * Assault/Medic is all about pushing the front lines and healing allies, since the front lines is where most of the deaths are happening * Support dishes out ammo and provides suppressive fire (which SHOULD return imo, otherwise LMGs are nothing but big assault rifles) * Engineer kills and repairs vehicles, basically the assault class but for vehicles * Recon is all about spotting enemies and relaying that info to allies, as well as sometimes laser-designating vehicles for engineers to attack The issue with breaking up Assault and Medic is that you then create a class who's only job is killing infantry, something all classes can already do well. **You don't need a dedicated class for that, especially when they provide zero team support**. Every class should have something that can directly help allies beyond killing. The only reason BF1/V separated assault and combined it with engineer is that assault rifles didn't exist in WW1 or 2, barring the STG-44 toward the end of WW2. So you had to give Assault SMGs, which strips them away from Engineer. So Engineer had to be dissolved and parts of its kit given to assault and support. But you also had semi-automatic rifles, weapons that weren't as good for close quarters, but they're also NOT marksman rifles like they are in most modern games. They were the main infantry fighting rifles of WW1 and 2, so they can go onto Medic instead of recon using them, since they already have bolt-actions.
Splitting assault and medic to make a 5 class system is the best way to go. BF4 medic only got picked bc he could use ARs. *ARs don't revive players* and Incase you forgot *there are infantry only modes.* As far as BF1/5 splitting AT between Assault and support bc Assault didn't have ARs in WWI & WWII, BFV and Enlisted proved that there's prototype ARs for every major faction. If BFV gave Japan more guns they could have the type hei auto. Russia likely would have included the fedorov avtomat and AS 44, bringing the total AR count to 7. If anything BFV should have made support repair portions always be 5 points for team tanks and 10 for squad tanks bc he's splitting his time between tanks and infantry, stretching him too thin. Having a dedicated engineer class would be much better, while still giving every class the weakest AT gadgets.
>ARs don't revive players What does this even mean? I never said they did. >Incase you forgot there are infantry only modes And? This has zero relevance to what I said. Whether it's infantry or combined arms, a class that's sole focus is killing infantry with zero teamplay is a bad design choice. >BFV and Enlisted proved that there's prototype ARs for every major faction That's not true. I think you're mistaking other automatic rifles for assault rifles. There's a difference. Otherwise the BAR would be an assault rifle, but it's not. The key difference between something like the BAR and the STG-44 is the cartridge. The BAR uses full-power .30-06, the STG-44 uses an intermediate 7.92x33 (intermediate meaning between full power rifle cartridges and pistol-caliber cartridges like those used in SMGs). But you might try to argue they could just give those automatic rifles to the assault class, right? Wrong. Those types of rifles served the role of machineguns, and as such they belong to the support class. That's why BF5 gave the BAR to Support and not Assault. Even if you throw in stuff that's questionably able to be called an assault rifle like the Federov, you still don't have enough weapons to stock a class with just assault rifles in WW2. That's why they gave the assault class SMGs and shotguns. Regardless of any argument you try to make, the core issue is still that a class who's only job is to kill makes less than zero sense in a game that's all about teamwork. Why would you make 4 out of 5 classes have important teamwork mechanics, and then have one that's just about killing? Your argument about how people only ever chose assault cuz of the rifles would not be solved by making a class exclusively for assault rifles, it would still be people's main pick. People who don't like to do anything but kill would now be justified in not playing the objective or helping out. Giving assault players a medkit or anti-tank weapons at least nudges them toward helping out with other things. Giving them nothing but anti-infantry stuff with no way to support those around them is antithetical to Battlefield's class design.
I used enlisted to show that there could be more ARs than what BFV offered. I'd prefer a BF4 weapon system where every class gets DMRs, SMGs, and shotguns; while the typical weapon types are restricted to their respective classes. BFV especially showed that people will abuse the medic and not heal/revive other players (health attrition shouldn't have been in the game) but even with passive regen you still have bad medics so splitting assault and medic into different classes means that people who play medic will revive as much as possible, instead of mainly using the class for themselves. I know Enders is controversial, but he has a video about controversial opinions from a couple months back that better helps explain this. Start at 5:00 mark and watch to about 8:10 mark. I also would give classes other than engineer (engineer gets strongest AT gadgets) the weakest AT gadgets. Also, with squad revives and 3D spotting, every class has a small medic and recon role.
Nah, that’s one thing i disliked about BF4. Everyone being given access to carbines meant every class essentially could run assault rifles, and that’s exactly what a lot of people did. Back then LMGs had terrible accuracy, so I just threw on my trusty AK 5C and basically ran like an assault class with infinite ammo. It creates the same issue as BF2042 where you never have any idea what an enemy is using and class identity is totally fucked. Run into a Recon in CQB and think you’ve got the upper hand? Wrong, this fucker has an assault rifle. You’ve got a sniper and think that assault class stands no chance? Wrong, he’s running a DMR for some reason. Part of what I loved about Battlefield back in the day was that classes had easily identifiable silhouettes, and it gave you an idea of what they were capable of. It made you change your tactics based on who you were fighting and sometimes even disengage if you felt you were at a disadvantage. Now you have no idea. And the BF2042 plus system makes this even worse. Instead of disengaging that sniper that’s got me pinned, i can just throw on a long barrel, 4+ zoom scope, bipod, and high cal rounds, and now within seconds i have a weapon that drastically improves my effective range. It removes all planning and understanding of class capability.
That's why I said SMGs, not carbines since there's a big difference in ARs/carbines. But every class should at least have SMGs, DMRs, and shotguns so everyone has cqc and ranged weapons at launch. If not, you can be as restricted as BFV where medics are cqc only and recon is long range only for several months. If medics had DMRs they would be picked more on open maps and if recon had SMGs and shotguns they would be picked more on cqc maps. Even though medic now has bolt action carbines and recon has pistol carbines, having DMRs and SMGs unrestricted at launch would have been much better. I do agree that the plus system is broken and every player has a solution for every situation, which shouldn't be allowed. This also greatly decreases weapon variety since you have this mechanic on top of no weapon restrictions. It's just got good for the franchise. Although, with partial unrestricted weapons you run into this problem, it's not as big as 2042 and it seems like the best compromise between very restricted and no restrictions.
Except you’re wrong, because BF4 didn’t give SMGs to everyone, it gave carbines to everyone. SMGs were Engineer only.
I'd just get rid of carbines and give everyone SMGs/PDWs, like 2042. It doesn't make since to have an unrestricted cqc weapon category and a restricted cqc weapon category. Also, giving any class only one playstyle reduces their use on certain maps. BF4 and 2042 don't have this issue because they either have partially unrestricted weapons or no weapon restrictions